Is Ontario headed for another Wynne win?

[Waterfall]

Sexual harassment is a criminal offence, yes.

As for the other, you're refusing to answer my question about whether you consider his conduct (which no one disputes) to have been a reflection on his character and fitness to hold the office of Premier of Ontario.

Well, I guess it is only my morality. Foolish of me to think that it's wrong for a Member of Parliament in his 30's to use his position to impress an 18 year old girl he met on a plane and then Facebook stalk her a couple of hours later by sending her a creepy pickup line ("are you surprised that I remember your name?") And of course a 30-something Member of Parliament should be allowed to use his office to get that 18 year old girl into a bar she's not allowed to be in and then to get her drunk at a party at his own house and end up alone in his bedroom with her. Now that I think about - sure, that's just my personal morality. I can certainly see why most people would be unconcerned with those facts. What was I thinking? As long as he's not actually been found guilty of a criminal offence, all that's just dandy. What a great guy he is.

Come to think of it - Donald Trump's a great guy, too. Not found guilty of anything. Salt of the earth, he is.

My understanding is that these incidences supposedly occurred when he was in his 20's and he is 39 now. Do I think men in their 20's can show poor judgement even if they are in a political office......yes I do. Rumours around Barrie were rampant about his behaviour, yet he seems to have been re elected, hmmmm. I guess some thought it was okay to elect a scumbag?
As for condoning his behaviour, if he was actually in his bedroom while in his 20's with an 18 year old girl who willingly went in and then refused sex and he respected that and then took her home.........I'm thinking that could've remained between them.....but of course it was made public, so here we are. Possibly there is more to the incident that we don't know.

 

[Luce NDs]

People as a host that are emotionally overcome ... Passover?

 

[Mendalla]

Well, Lisa Raitt isn't interested, so that's one potential gone. They are going to have a short leadership race with a vote by end of February apparently (which isn't what caucus wanted, they wanted Vic Fedeli, the interim leader, to lead them into the election). There are some names being floated but most are former candidates or wishful thinking.

Lisa Raitt announces she won’t seek Ontario PC leadership

 

[revjohn]

Well, Lisa Raitt isn't interested, so that's one potential gone.

Why would she be interested? She isn't a perennial backbencher like Brown was. Should the Conservatives ever take control of Parliament she could wind up in the Cabinet. Brown would have had to have had something more to offer than he did. He jumped to the provincial level, without abandoning his federal seat hoping to be a big fish in a smaller pond as being a little fish in a big pond wasn't working for him.

They are going to have a short leadership race with a vote by end of February apparently (which isn't what caucus wanted, they wanted Vic Fedeli, the interim leader, to lead them into the election).

Proper thing after all the noise they made when Wynne assumed the Liberal leadership and the Premiership without an election. Applesauce for the goose and all that.

I know it is the harder row to hoe. I applaud them for taking it. That shows courage and integrity. Qualities not on obvious display in the current politics scene in Ontario.

 

[revsdd]

I know it is the harder row to hoe. I applaud them for taking it. That shows courage and integrity.

We disagree on this. The decision showed neither courage nor integrity. It was politically expedient. They decided this was the best and most politically "sellable" of three truly bad options, to wit:

1) They could have stuck with Patrick Brown and tried to ride it out. Had the election been two years away, this might have been the approach to try, at least for a few months, because so much of the Ontario PC Party is now geared toward Patrick Brown being the leader. But with the election less than 6 months away, they obviously felt that this issue would overshadow everything. I think he needed to step down, as I've explained, but I'm not entirely convinced he couldn't have ridden it out. As I've said, Brown's "guilt" is less important to me than his judgement, but there's at least some sense I'm picking up that people (including those not necessarily sympathetic to the PCs) are getting a bit fed up with the current "guilty because someone makes an accusation" atmosphere, and politics is funny - Brown could have picked up some sympathy vote. But it would have been risky.

2) They could have chosen an interim leader to lead them into the election and then had a leadership convention later. But then they would have been asking the people of Ontario to vote PC without giving them any real sense of who we'd be putting in the Premier's chair if we did. Sort of a "give us a blank cheque" approach - very much a "blank cheque" because the PC Party does have both a "progressive" and a "conservative" wing and who knows which wing would have come out on top in a later leadership race? That also would have been risky.

3) They could choose to have a quick leadership convention, which has the potential to open old wounds in the party, to lay bare that "progressive" vs "conservative" divide just as they're going into an election and which probably limits the potential field of candidates to those who have already done some organizing. So, for all the Caroline Mulroney hype I have my doubts that she has enough of a base in the party to pull it off unless every other serious contender pulls out and lets her be anointed - which isn't impossible. But I'm also not convinced that the Mulroney name has as much "magic" in PC circles as the Trudeau name had in Liberal circles. This is the route they've chosen, and it's risky - but probably the least risky of the three.

So - courage? "Courage" would probably have been option (1). Integrity? I don't see it. I see political expediency and a party stuck between a rock and a hard place with a ceiling over their head.

 

[Mendalla]

Politics isn't about being courageous and taking risks, at least not here in Canada in the 21st century. It's about promising more of the same and giving a sense of stability and a "strong hand on the tiller". The fact that Brown ended up embracing, with only minor modifications, a lot of Liberal policies shows that if nothing else. Even if a party is willing to take a risk on a policy or leader, voters often aren't and can punish a party that does.

 

[revjohn]

We disagree on this.

I am okay with that.

It was politically expedient. They decided this was the best and most politically "sellable" of three truly bad options, to wit:

Well, the Party brass did at any rate. Apparently, the caucus was opting for one of the other bad options

1) They could have stuck with Patrick Brown and tried to ride it out.

They could have, yes. They may have had #MeToo not been such a thing. That would have been a gamble. One could presume that there were only the two women with stories to tell and no more will/would come forward. I mean, to hear Brown tell it there shouldn't have even been two.

One could claim courage sticking with a tainted leader. Not really the word reached for when Moore supporters were discussed. Sure it is more expedient cutting off your nose rather than waiting to see if you were going to project the image of enabler. And yes, Brown brought a lot of memberships into the party. Many of whom probably never heard the rumors and think it is nothing more than a Liberal hatchet job, or because of Trump's stink, deep state operatives turfing an everyman.

There are as many risks giving Brown the heave-ho as there were keeping him on. The main difference being that most of the opposition to keeping him was from "career" politicians. Way to alienate the base.

I'm picking up that people (including those not necessarily sympathetic to the PCs) are getting a bit fed up with the current "guilty because someone makes an accusation" atmosphere, and politics is funny - Brown could have picked up some sympathy vote. But it would have been risky.

I've heard the same so yes, there is a risk of giving Brown the bums rush. Fedeli has, I think, cut a pretty fine line so far. I won't toss you from caucus if you take a leave of absence. I won't sign your election papers to run as a PC if you aren't taking your leave to clear your name. I'm not sure those most steamed will see either option as generous.

Fedeli is, at the very least managing an optic of understanding and fairness.

They chose what, I believe, at any rate, is a riskier path. Not taking this one.

2) They could have chosen an interim leader to lead them into the election and then had a leadership convention later. . . .That also would have been risky.

It still is risky. They are managing the risk up front when they could, more safely, ride Fedeli's shoulders into Government and worry about the backlash to the leader after they were "safe."

If I remember correctly ON PC's were rather critical of McGuinty resigning so that Wynne could become Premier without going to the polls. Mind you politics is a game of double-standards it wouldn't phase the PC party base it could be used to mobilize flagging Liberal support.

3) They could choose to have a quick leadership convention, which has the potential to open old wounds in the party, to lay bare that "progressive" vs "conservative" divide just as they're going into an election and which probably limits the potential field of candidates to those who have already done some organizing. This is the route they've chosen, and it's risky - but probably the least risky of the three.

Time will tell. I don't know that it is safer than the other two options. This could be where a Doug Ford finally sees his chance to grab that brass ring he craves and while I think Ford would draw in some new memberships I think he would also push out soft members. Anecdotally speaking I have a relative (through marriage to Kimberly) who is militantly anti-Wynne. The only nightmare worse than a Wynne victory this year would be Ford winning the ON PC leadership. That actually would be considered more of a disaster.

We might want to scoff thinking Ford couldn't pull off a victory.

Trump's win and Moore's narrow defeat shouldn't give us too much room for smugness.

The fact that Party Brass did this contrary to the wishes of caucus shows that the decision is already creating some friction so. Bear in mind that the ON PC President Rick Dykstra probably lost his seat because of a report just two weeks before the election that he was buying drinks for minors at a St. Catherines bar. Must have been difficult watching a fellow frat-packer find himself in a similar situation. That said anyone claiming that Brown is completely done for fails to recognize that scandals don't necessarily kill politicians. They might be kept from being an MP or an MPP. Doesn't stop them from being appointed to the Senate or becoming party President.

Given the choices set before them, I think that choosing one over any other involves some courage. A great deal of courage? I wouldn't go that far.

And integrity sure. Stuck between a rock and a hard place as they are the Party Brass decides to go against caucus and take a risk on fracturing the party so close to an election and possibly tossing up a leader who challenges Hudak for blowing leads. And with many knowing Dykstra is where he is because of his indiscretion they might have a hard time with him being so tough on an old non-drinking drinking buddy in a similar situation

 

[revsdd]

I'm not sure how much courage it takes to choose one out of three possible bad choices, nor how much courage it takes for those who are empowered to make a decision to make a decision.

Anyway, I reject the comparison of McGuinty turning power over to Wynne.

That's how the system works. A premier (or prime minister) has been in office for quite a while (10 years for McGuinty) then retires and turns power over to someone else. When it's a governing party, the person who takes over is generally a known quantity to voters - it's not like someone out of the blue who most voters don't even know taking over. Wynne had been in McGuinty's Cabinet for a long time. Same with other examples:

George Drew turned it over to Leslie Frost (with an interim for a few months between them).
Leslie Frost turned it over to John Robarts.
John Robarts turned it over to Bill Davis.
Bill Davis turned it over to Frank Miller.
Mike Harris turned it over to Ernie Eves.

All Conservatives and all without elections - and all the successors were (like Wynne) known quantities who had served in Cabinet.

A bit different that an opposition party going leaderless into an election and asking for carte blanche to choose whoever they want afterward.

Closest I can think of to an opposition party doing that was the Liberal Party of Canada in 1979.

Joe Clark was PM, Pierre Trudeau had resigned as Liberal leader, and the Clark government fell. Who would lead the Liberal Party in the election? Some talked of holding a quick leadership convention. Some talked about an interim leader picked by caucus with a leadership convention after the election. Some just wanted Trudeau to come back. The ultimate decision was Trudeau (who was hardly an unknown quantity after being PM for 11 years) who came back as leader (not interim) but who also said he didn't want to lead the party in another election - which he didn't. He turned things over to John Turner after four years. I do remember Joe Clark's famous quip from that election though - that Trudeau's basic campaign promise was "elect me and I shall resign!"

 

[revjohn]

I'm not sure how much courage it takes to choose one out of three possible bad choices, nor how much courage it takes for those who are empowered to make a decision to make a decision.

Anytime you have crap to choose from courage is required to swallow.

That's how the system works. A premier (or prime minister) has been in office for quite a while (10 years for McGuinty) then retires and turns power over to someone else.

I think you miss my point.

I agree with you, that is how power transfers within parties. My point is that ON PC's groused about it happening when Wynne took the reigns from McGuinty. I know it is political routine to scream murder when your opponent does pretty much what you do. Doesn't really point to much integrity.

So, knowing that they could ride Fedeli to a more secure victory and risk alienating the voting public afterward they have chosen to risk alienating the public before-hand.

That move is consistent with the grousing about Wynne. It is inconsistent with other transitions in their own history. No recollection if foul was cried by the Liberals then. Yesterday's politicians seemed to have a firmer grasp on parliamentary procedures.

 

[Ritafee]

Can anyone comment on which, if any, of these politicians and parties, would actually serve any interest of the people that they are supposedly governing. From this conversation - I see only an evaluation of what would be the best political strategy to serve the politicians - not the public.

 

[Mendalla]

Can anyone comment on which, if any, of these politicians and parties, would actually serve any interest of the people that they are supposedly governing. From this conversation - I see only an evaluation of what would be the best political strategy to serve the politicians - not the public.

None of them, which is why we are having the conversation we are. If either the Libs or PCs actually showed any signs of integrity and public service,. I am sure we would be talking about it. To be honest, this Spring's election is looking increasingly like a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don't (or at least don't know as well). Unless the voters shock us by giving the NDP a shot at governing, but I am not holding my breath.

Thing is, those comments I made about parties not having the courage to take risks? A big part of that is voters not taking risks. If the voters seemed ready to take a flyer on something radically different, that might force the parties to do so. And I am not talking Trump, where the change was mostly one of style. I am talking taking a real risk on a new way of doing government. Not a particular new way. There are plenty around. Just something besides the same old same old.

 

[Ritafee]

None of them, which is why we are having the conversation we are. If either the Libs or PCs actually showed any signs of integrity and public service,. I am sure we would be talking about it. To be honest, this Spring's election is looking increasingly like a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don't (or at least don't know as well). Unless the voters shock us by giving the NDP a shot at governing, but I am not holding my breath.

Thing is, those comments I made about parties not having the courage to take risks? A big part of that is voters not taking risks. If the voters seemed ready to take a flyer on something radically different, that might force the parties to do so. And I am not talking Trump, where the change was mostly one of style. I am talking taking a real risk on a new way of doing government. Not a particular new way. There are plenty around. Just something besides the same old same old.

I am the devil I know the best. If I lived in Ontario I would not vote at the ballot box. I would vote with my service to the community that I live in. If I lived in London Ontario I would never take a job at the factory that provides ammunition to 'kill' others. That is a vote for disarmament is it not. For me it is just that simple. The only way to change the existing system is for the public to starve it out - stop feeding it.

 

[Jaebius]

I am the devil I know the best. If I lived in Ontario I would not vote at the ballot box. I would vote with my service to the community that I live in.

I will be voting PPP... if we can find someone willing to run as a candidate in my riding.

 

[Mendalla]

I will be voting PPP... if we can find someone willing to run as a candidate in my riding.

How about you?

 

[BetteTheRed]

I'm personally not unhappy with the Wynne Liberals. However, I think complacency is a bad thing, and so I don't disagree with letting someone else try. However, Horvath drives me mad, the PC party are looking almost systemically corrupt, and the Green Party can't seem to make any purchase. I think I'll probably vote Green, as I often do.

 

[Jaebius]

How about you?

The party leader asked me to consider it. However, there is a chance that I won't even be in Ontario when the election takes place.

 

[Jaebius]

I'm personally not unhappy with the Wynne Liberals. However, I think complacency is a bad thing, and so I don't disagree with letting someone else try. However, Horvath drives me mad, the PC party are looking almost systemically corrupt, and the Green Party can't seem to make any purchase. I think I'll probably vote Green, as I often do.

There's no way I could vote for the Wynne Liberals. Not after the sex-ed scandal. Not after what I feel was the undue raise in the minimm wage. Not sure who I'll vote for if PPP remains not an option.

 

[Mendalla]

If I lived in London Ontario I would never take a job at the factory that provides ammunition to 'kill' others.

In a city with a high blue collar unemployment rate, I am not sure workers have much choice in some cases. If you're a laid off auto worker and have a family to feed, they are often the only line in town that's hiring. If you don't mind the commute, there's Toyota in Woodstock and some related operations but even CAMI, which builds SUVs for GM and Chevy has been reducing their workforce. Perhaps if NAFTA goes up the spout and the US and Canada restore the old auto pact, some jobs might come back from Mexico but I am not hopeful. The automakers are hellbent on reducing labour costs and if Mexico is cut off as an option, then they may just go the Japanese route of automating the hell out of their factories.

The city is pushing harder to diversify but I highly doubt tech firms are going to be hiring laid off auto workers even if they are retrained. That's a young person's world and they'll hire my son straight out of university before they'll hire a former autoworker.

The arrival of Dr. Oetker's (frozen pizza) heralds some hope in the form of non-auto manufacturing but I doubt places like that hire as many as an auto line or defense plant.

 

[BetteTheRed]

There's no way I could vote for the Wynne Liberals. Not after the sex-ed scandal. Not after what I feel was the undue raise in the minimm wage. Not sure who I'll vote for if PPP remains not an option.

There was no sex ed scandal, except that manufactured by an absolute minority of religious fundamentalists. No 'regular' person in Ontario thinks that there's anything wrong with the way sexual education is mandated in the provincial curriculum.

Increases in minimum wage are a tried and true way that "a rising tide floats all boats". It's exactly the opposite of the completely failed "trickle down" theory espoused by some conservatives. Poor people spend every extra penny they get, usually right into the local economy; rich people put more of it away. It's a fact, an economic fact, that actually works. Injecting money into the bottom is good for an economy.

 

[Ritafee]

In a city with a high blue collar unemployment rate, I am not sure workers have much choice in some cases. If you're a laid off auto worker and have a family to feed, they are often the only line in town that's hiring. If you don't mind the commute, there's Toyota in Woodstock and some related operations but even CAMI, which builds SUVs for GM and Chevy has been reducing their workforce. Perhaps if NAFTA goes up the spout and the US and Canada restore the old auto pact, some jobs might come back from Mexico but I am not hopeful. The automakers are hellbent on reducing labour costs and if Mexico is cut off as an option, then they may just go the Japanese route of automating the hell out of their factories.

Still ... for me ... if my choice is risk to myself versus providing a means to increase risk to others ... I would have to take the risk of not being able to feed my own family as the better choice. And if enough people were willing to make that choice ... who will work in the factory ... the politicians?